Creation Ex Nihilo

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> Clearly if x is "positive energy" and y is "negative energy", then x = y or x - y = 0. But the total energy is x + y, and since x = y, the total energy is 2x. Assuming the total energy is zero, then 2x = 0 so x = 0. But since x &lt;&gt; 0, 2x &lt;&gt; 0, so the total energy of the universe is not zero.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Now to address your post technically and mathematically.

Doing this properly we will assign theoretical values of energy.

x = +1
y = -1

If we state 0

---

&gt; x + y we are saying 0

---

&gt;(+1)+(-1) which is what I have argued.

Likewise o - y = x; therefore x = -(-1) = +1

0 - x = y; therefore y = -(+1) = -1

X does not = Y. It has an equal magnitude but an inverse sign.



What Tryon really means is that the NET energy is zero, x - y = 0. But this is not nothing. Nothingness is when the GROSS energy is zero, x + y = 0. You, like Tryon, are confusing the two ideas.

---

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />JRich,

You have made a number of challenges. i.e. - post some supporting documenttion. That infers there is none and my posts were wholly personal with no bonafide support.

Having posted a link you now chose to challenge the data posted. It is a never ending stratigy. You will always find another point to disagree with each time one is resolved.

You are one of those people that will refuse to acknowledge the "possibility" your view might be in error. I am not saying that you are converted but only that you don't accept any possiblity that you are in error. (My opinion)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I believe that my view is the correct one, just as you believe in your view. Logic dictates that we cannot both be right. We both agree that neither view can be proved in the sense that we can observe the creation or traverse eternity to show that there was none. To your mind, as far as I can discern, a proof of this kind is the <b><font color="red">only</font id="red"></b> way to settle the matter. But as has been pointed out to you several times by myself and others, there is another way. Since this matter represents a dichotomy, if one of us is able to rigorously prove that the other view is logically inconsistent, then he has proved his view, period. This is one of the most basic ways that ideas are advanced or rejected in science.

Since I am presenting a logical argument I do not need to present "data" or "documentation". <b>You</b> made the referral to the work of others to support your view, not I. You in effect offered their argument as a proxy for yours, so I don't see how I am out of line to critique them. I provided no direct challenge, as you claim, to any data. What I challenged was the <b>premise</b> of the underlying theory, which consists wholly of reasoning.

Yours is the neverending strategy. From time to time you are unable or unwilling to rebut challenges, so you appeal to the work of others which you claim supports your view. This invariably causes the discussion to drift off subject. I hope you can see and appreciate that I do not do this.

Despite what you might think, I am capable of having an open mind and advocating a particular view. However, since I require a correctly reasoned argument in support of an idea to adopt it in the first place, it naturally takes a correctly reasoned argument for me to abandon it. Debates such as ours are where I expect find such arguments. That is why I monitor and participate in these forums.


JR

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Despite what you might think, I am capable of having an open mind and advocating a particular view. However, since I require a correctly reasoned argument in support of an idea to adopt it in the first place, it naturally takes a correctly reasoned argument for me to abandon it. Debates such as ours are where I expect find such arguments. That is why I monitor and participate in these forums.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Fair enough response, although I could debate some statements I'll not pick bones over it.

Now explain why you altered the mathematical sign above in an attempt to swade others that my view had been mathematically flawed. It isn't.

Further do you have any response the his calculations of a net "Zero" universe?




"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> Clearly if x is "positive energy" and y is "negative energy", then x = y or x - y = 0. But the total energy is x + y, and since x = y, the total energy is 2x. Assuming the total energy is zero, then 2x = 0 so x = 0. But since x &lt;&gt; 0, 2x &lt;&gt; 0, so the total energy of the universe is not zero.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Now to address your post technically and mathematically.

Doing this properly we will assign theoretical values of energy.

x = +1
y = -1

If we state 0

---

&gt; x + y we are saying 0

---

&gt;(+1)+(-1) which is what I have argued.

Likewise o - y = x; therefore x = -(-1) = +1

0 - x = y; therefore y = -(+1) = -1

X does not = Y. It has an equal magnitude but an inverse sign.


What Tryon really means is that the NET energy is zero, x - y = 0. But this is not nothing. Nothingness is when the GROSS energy is zero, x + y = 0. You, like Tryon, are confusing the two ideas.

---

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Let's assume you are correct and see what happens. Tryon's theory states that when matter accelerates due to gravity the "negative" gravitational potential energy lost is converted to an equal amount of "positive" rest energy. Let y be the initial gravitational potential energy of an object and x be its initial rest energy, where x + y = 0 (as you insist). After undergoing gravitational acceleration over a certain distance d the gravitational potential energy is y', where y' = .5y. After the distance d, let x' be the rest energy, where x' &gt; x.

Theory requires x' + y' = 0 so

x' + y' = x + y

(x' - x) + y' = y

x' - x = y - y'

x' - x = y - .5y (remember y' = .5y)

x' - x = .5y

x' = .5y + x

Now lets give x = 1 and y = -1 and solve for x':

x' = .5(-1) + 1

x' = .5

According to the theory x' &gt; x after distance d, but .5 <b>&lt;</b> 1, so this is inconsistent. Therefore the premise x + y = 0 is disproved.


JR

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>x' + y' = x + y</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: 0 = 0 and you fail to carry signs by masking the operation by deltas * y, etc.

Invalid.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Tell us your personal record at developing a concept and having made any "Priori Predictions".
____________________________________________________________________

mac

meaning what exactly!!?
_____________________________________________________________________


You have an annoying habit of saying "You are wrong", when the simple facts are you do not and cannot know that.
______________________________________________________________________

ANS: in this case i can safely say that you are wrong,since your "nothing" has no dimension,time,space,energy,matter or depth,i think i can say "YOU ARE WRONG" because something cannot come from nothing,it seems a reasonable conclusion. the facts are i DO and CAN know that.just so you know i'm not the only one!! the thing that i find odd,is your ability to agree with the 6 above properties are not to be found in "nothing" and then turn around and still think that something can come from nothing!! sometimes i think you are desperately clinging to this "something from nothing" and will use any support you can find,even to the point of bending a theory or idea to suite your purposes. when larry made the comment awhile back, about religious overtones in your unyielding stand, i have to say i also thought the same. sometimes it seems that you are not even taking the time to think what people are saying to you.

finally Mac it would take one hell of a theory and/or observation to change my mind,but do you not see that if this did happen,that you have the theory and/or observation that would change my mind, that i would in turn say to you..... so lets find out what is going on,that is science, it investigates.i would try to understand the how's,why's and what's of this "nothing that gives something" so that at some point in time we will understand it.and given time we will find that nothing is actually something.i like my odds much better!!